Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research

Saini, Michael; Shlonsky, Aron

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387216.001.0001

Cited by 200 publications

(209 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

200

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When reviewing empirical evidence, we concur with the suggestion that the search strategy needs to fulfil standard criteria for systematic reviews for a review to be called systematic (Saini and Shlonsky 2012). Hence, authors should adopt information retrieval strategies that are comprehensive in that they cover a range of different sources of published and unpublished studies, such as electronic databases, personal contacts and hand searching, and are transparent, with sufficient details to being reproducible.…”

Section: Making It Work In Practice 61 Implications For the Search supporting

confidence: 68%

“…Many of them share a number of similarities, to the extent that there are different labels to describe what appears to be essentially the same method. In the methodological literature, it is common to describe these methods as being on a spectrum from aggregative approaches, at one end, to interpretive (configurative) synthesis methods, at the other end (Noyes and Lewin 2011, Saini and Shlonsky 2012, Thomas et al 2012.…”

Section: Options For Synthesis Of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interpretive methods include meta-ethnography, grounded theory, realist synthesis and thematic synthesis with theory generation Lewin 2011, Saini andShlonsky 2012).…”

Section: Options For Synthesis Of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Extensive searching of the grey literature, hand searching of books and journals, snowballing and contacting experts have been found to be particularly important in identifying studies for inclusion Peacock 2005, Thomas andHarden 2008). In addition to working with an information specialist when developing search strategies, recent publications provide useful starting points for guidance on developing a suitable search strategy for systematic reviews that include a broader range of evidence (Boot 2011, Saini andShlonsky 2012).…”

Section: Making It Work In Practice 61 Implications For the Search mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5. Spencer et al (2003) and Dixon-Woods et al (2006) Noyes et al (2011) and Saini and Shlonsky (2012) for useful overviews. 7.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

Snilstveit

2012

Journal of Development Effectiveness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance Birte SnilstveitTo cite this article: Birte Snilstveit (2012) Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4:3, 388-408, DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2012 Theory-based systematic reviews, which summarise evidence on what works, when and why, strive for greater policy relevance. Reviews that answer these questions adopt a mixed methods approach and draw on a range of study types. Answering the 'what works' and 'what doesn't' questions means drawing on effectiveness studies, conducted to standards of high-quality impact evaluation. But in formulating answers to the 'when' and 'why' questions requires a broader range of evidence from both quantitative and qualitative research. Based on a review of the methodological literature in this field and the experience of 3ie's systematic reviews program, this article provides an outline of how a theory-based approach to systematic reviews, including appropriate quantitative and qualitative evidence, can be operationalised. We propose an approach based on three principles: (1) develop a program theory for the intervention; (2) adopt a mixed methods approach and include a broader range of evidence; and (3) maintain the rigour and transparency that characterise systematic reviews. The approach translates into two broad options. Effectiveness plus reviews focus on providing a detailed causal chain analysis by drawing on a program theory and additional data collection on context and intervention implementation. And effectiveness plus with a parallel review component, which is designed to answer specific research questions related to effectiveness, adopts separate inclusion criteria, reflecting the type of studies appropriate for answering those questions.

show abstract

Section: Making It Work In Practice 61 Implications For the Search supporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Options For Synthesis Of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interpretive methods include meta-ethnography, grounded theory, realist synthesis and thematic synthesis with theory generation Lewin 2011, Saini andShlonsky 2012).…”

Section: Options For Synthesis Of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Making It Work In Practice 61 Implications For the Search mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5. Spencer et al (2003) and Dixon-Woods et al (2006) Noyes et al (2011) and Saini and Shlonsky (2012) for useful overviews. 7.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations